grant-gantt-chart-gen

Use grant gantt chart gen for evidence insight workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.

Quality

40%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/grant-gantt-chart-gen/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

56%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is actionable and workflow-oriented with real executable commands and validation/fallback steps, but it is padded with repeated phrasing, cross-reference filler, and generic boilerplate that should be trimmed or moved to reference files. Progressive disclosure is only partly realized because much tangential content remains inlined.

Suggestions

Remove the verbatim description repetitions and the empty 'See ## X above' filler sections to tighten the body.

Move the generic Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, and Lifecycle Status blocks into a reference file or drop them, keeping SKILL.md focused on the Gantt-generation workflow.

Fix the Usage example to match the actual script (JSON milestone input) and show a complete copy-paste invocation including --start-date and --format.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~200-line body is noticeably verbose: the description sentence is repeated verbatim in multiple sections, several sections are pure cross-reference filler ('See ## Features above'), and generic boilerplate (Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template, Output Requirements) pads the document with process discipline Claude already applies.	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete, executable commands (py_compile, --help) and a real usage example with arguments plus a parameters table and a real script path, with only minor gaps (the usage example uses a CSV input while the script actually reads JSON).	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow section gives a clear 5-step sequence with validation checkpoints ('stop early if unsupported assumptions', 'switch to fallback path') and a dedicated Error Handling section, though the steps stay abstract rather than mapping to concrete chart-generation actions.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle files (scripts/main.py, references/audit-reference.md) exist and are referenced and one level deep, but large amounts of content that should live in separate files (risk/security/evaluation/lifecycle boilerplate) are inlined into SKILL.md, leaving structure present but not well split.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

25%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is domain-named but largely circular and abstract, restating the skill name instead of concrete capabilities and relying on generic process qualifiers rather than natural user trigger phrases. It lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause and risks overlapping with many evidence-oriented skills.

Suggestions

Replace the circular 'Use grant gantt chart gen' phrasing with concrete actions, e.g. 'Generate Gantt charts and milestone timelines for grant proposals from milestone CSV/JSON data.'

Add an explicit trigger clause with natural user phrases: 'Use when the user needs a project timeline, Gantt chart, or milestone schedule for a grant proposal.'

Drop generic meta-qualifiers ('structured execution', 'explicit assumptions') from the description and move them into the body where they belong.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('grant gantt chart') but offers no concrete actions, instead restating the skill name as a verb ('Use grant gantt chart gen') with abstract qualifiers, matching the 'names domain but actions minimal/generic' anchor rather than the level-3 anchor which requires 1-2 concrete actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is circular (the skill name used as the action) and there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so both what and when are weakly specified rather than the clear 'what' required for a 3.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Beyond 'grant gantt chart', the trigger phrases are abstract meta-terms ('evidence insight workflows', 'structured execution', 'explicit assumptions') that a user would not naturally say; common natural synonyms (timeline, schedule, milestones) are absent, leaving only one or two generic keywords.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The qualifier 'evidence insight workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' is broadly applicable to almost any research/evidence skill, creating high overlap risk with many similar skills.	2 / 5
	Total	8 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/grant-gantt-chart-gen/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 9 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.